A Spacial Assessment of Ecosystem Services in Europe

PARTNERSHIP FOR EUROPEAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Ecosystems are critically important to our well-being and prosperity as they provide us with food,
clean air and fresh water and they maintain a livable biosphere. Consequently, it is increasingly
considered to be of crucial importance that ecosystem services be included in decision making for
policies that affect the use or the state of natural resources. New biodiversity policies that have
been adopted at global and EU levels have set targets to safeguard biodiversity and to maintain the
supply of ecosystem services. In order to achieve biodiversity targets, changes in policies affecting
natural resources must be shown to be benecial to human well-being through the enhanced ow
of ecosystem services. Investments must also be prioritised and made cost-effective based on
a sound knowledge base and reliable assessment methods. This study carried out case studies
to help explore how such assessment methods might be developed at multiple spatial scales,
in particular for pollination, recreation and water purication. The spatial assessment of these
ecosystem services carried out in this study includes maps that display the potential and actual
supply of these services in both biophysical and monetary units. Scenarios were used to estimate
the changes in the ow of ecosystem services and the benets that could arise as a result of policy
changes. Our approaches show that the inclusion of the ecosystem services concept into policies
would allow for a systematic review of the consequences of policy measures for services beyond
conventional environmental assessments.
www.peer.eu
A spatial assessment
of ecosystem services
in Europe:
Methods, case studies
and policy analysis -
phase 2
Synthesis report
Joachim Maes, Jennifer Hauck, Maria Luisa Paracchini, Outi Ratamki, Mette Termansen,
Marta Perez-Soba, Leena Kopperoinen, Katri Rankinen, Jan Philipp Schgner, Peter Henrys,
Iwona Cisowska, Marianne Zandersen, Kurt Jax, Alessandra La Notte, Niko Leikola, Eija Pouta,
Simon Smart, Berit Hasler, Tuija Lankia, Hans Estrup Andersen, Carlo Lavalle, Tommer Vermaas,
Mohammed Hussen Alemu, Paul Scholeeld, Filipe Batista, Richard Pywell, Mike Hutchins,
Morten Blemmer, Anders Fonnesbech-Wulff, Adam J. Vanbergen, Bernd Mnier, Claudia Baranzelli,
David Roy, Vincent Thieu, Grazia Zulian, Mikko Kuussaari, Hans Thodsen, Eeva-Liisa Alanen,
Benis Egoh, Peter Borgen Srensen, Leon Braat, Giovanni Bidoglio
L
B
-
N
S
-
2
5
4
6
0
-
E
N
-
C

(
p
r
i
n
t
)

L
B
-
N
S
-
2
5
4
6
0
-
E
N
-
N

(
o
n
l
i
n
e
)
PEER member institutes
Created in 2001, PEER is a partnership of seven large European environmental
research centres. PEER members cover the full spectrum of the environmental
sciences and combine basic with applied research anticipating societal needs.
PEER members carry out their research in strategic and interdisciplinary
multi-annual programmes, working with partners worldwide to solve complex
environmental challenges. The vision of PEER is to be a world leader in
integrating knowledge and expertise for sustainable development, in support
of policy-makers, industry and society.
www.peer.eu
PEER
Alterra
The Institute for Applied Environmental Research
of Wageningen University and Research Centre
The Netherlands
www.alterra.wur.nl
CEH Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
United Kingdom
www.ceh.ac.uk
Irstea
National Research Institute
of Science and Technology
for Environment and Agriculture
France
www.irstea.fr
JRC Joint Research Centre
Institute for Environment and Sustainability
European Commission
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu
Finnish Environment Institute
Finland
www.environment./syke
DCE- Danish Centre for Environment and Energy
Aarhus University
Denmark
www.dce.au.dk
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ
Germany
www.ufz.de
PEER Report No 4
Joachim Maes, Jennifer Hauck, Maria Luisa Paracchini, Outi Ratamki, Mette Termansen, Marta Perez-Soba,
Leena Kopperoinen, Katri Rankinen, Jan Philipp Schgner, Peter Henrys, Iwona Cisowska, Marianne Zandersen,
Kurt Jax, Alessandra La Notte, Niko Leikola, Eija Pouta, Simon Smart, Berit Hasler, Tuija Lankia, Hans Estrup Andersen,
Carlo Lavalle, Tommer Vermaas, Mohammed Hussen Alemu, Paul Scholefeld, Filipe Batista, Richard Pywell, Mike
Hutchins, Morten Blemmer, Anders Fonnesbech-Wulff, Adam J. Vanbergen, Bernd Mnier, Claudia Baranzelli, David Roy,
Vincent Thieu, Grazia Zulian, Mikko Kuussaari, Hans Thodsen, Eeva-Liisa Alanen, Benis Egoh, Peter Borgen Srensen,
Leon Braat, Giovanni Bidoglio
A spatial assessment
of ecosystem services
in Europe:
Methods, case studies
and policy analysis -
phase 2
Synthesis report
PARTNERSHIP FOR EUROPEAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Page layout: Selgraph
Cover photos: J. Maes, V. Thiemig,
European Commission, Joint Research Centre
The publication is available also on the Internet:
www.peer.eu
This report should be quoted as:
Joachim Maes, Jennifer Hauck, Maria Luisa Paracchini,
Outi Ratamki, Mette Termansen, Marta Perez-Soba, Leena
Kopperoinen, Katri Rankinen, Jan Philipp Schgner, Peter Henrys,
Iwona Cisowska, Marianne Zandersen, Kurt Jax, Alessandra
La Notte, Niko Leikola, Eija Pouta, Simon Smart, Berit Hasler,
Tuija Lankia, Hans Estrup Andersen, Carlo Lavalle, Tommer
Vermaas, Mohammed Hussen Alemu, Paul Scholefeld, Filipe
Batista, Richard Pywell, Mike Hutchins, Morten Blemmer, Anders
Fonnesbech-Wulff, Adam J. Vanbergen, Bernd Mnier, Claudia
Baranzelli, David Roy, Vincent Thieu, Grazia Zulian, Mikko
Kuussaari, Hans Thodsen, Eeva-Liisa Alanen, Benis Egoh, Peter
Borgen Srensen, Leon Braat, Giovanni Bidoglio 2012.
A spatial assessment of ecosystem services in Europe: methods,
case studies and policy analysis - phase 2. Synthesis report.
PEER Report No 4. Ispra: Partnership for European Environmental
Research
This publication is printed on paper produced
in an environmentally friendly way.
Printed by Selgraph srl, Italy 2012
EUR 25460 EN
ISSN 1018-5593 (print), 1831-9424 (online)
ISBN 978-92-79-25880-0 (print), 978-92-79-25879-4 (pdf)
doi:10.2788/41943 (print), 10.2788/41831 (online)
PEER 2012
European Union 2012
Contributions to the research and the text in the chapters
Water purifcation: Joachim Maes, Vincent Thieu, Alessandra La Notte (JRC), Mike Hutchins, Iwona Cisowska (CEH),
Katri Rankinen (SYKE), Anders Fonnesbech-Wulff, Hans Estrup Andersen, Hans Thodsen, Morten Blemmer, Bernd
Mnier, Berit Hasler, Mohammed Hussen Alemu, Mette Termansen (DCE, AU), Jennifer Hauck (UFZ)
Recreation: Maria Luisa Paracchini, Carlo Lavalle, Grazia Zulian, Joachim Maes, Jan Philipp Schgner, Claudia
Baranzelli, Filipe Batista (JRC), Leena Kopperoinen, Eija Pouta, Tuija Lankia (SYKE) Marta Perez-Soba, Tommer
Vermaas (Alterra), Mette Termansen, Marianne Zandersen (DCE, AU), Paul Scholefeld (CEH)
Pollination: Outi Ratamki, Eeva-Liisa Alanen, Niko Leikola, Mikko Kuussaari (SYKE), Joachim Maes, Maria Luisa
Paracchini, Grazia Zulian, Benis Egoh (JRC), Peter Henrys, Richard Pywell, David Roy, Simon Smart,
Adam J. Vanbergen (CEH), Peter Borgen Srensen (DCE, AU)
Policy analysis: Jennifer Hauck, Kurt Jax (UFZ), Outi Ratamki (SYKE)
Editing team: Joachim Maes & Leon Braat, with Maria Luisa Paracchini, Giovanni Bidoglio (JRC),
Jennifer Hauck (UFZ), Outi Ratamki (SYKE).
3 A spatial assessment of ecosystem services in Europe: Methods, case studies and policy analysis phase 2. Synthesis report
Contents
Summary
1 Introduction 7
1.1 The policy context 7
1.2 The PRESS study 8
1.3 Outline of the PRESS Phase 2 Synthesis report 9
2 Mapping and assessment of water purifcation services at multiple spatial scales 11
2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 Results 12
3 Mapping and assessment of outdoor recreation at multiple spatial scales 15
3.1 Introduction 15
3.2 Results 16
4 Mapping and stakeholder assessment of pollination services at
multiple spatial scales 23
4.1 Introduction 23
4.2 Results 24
5 The impacts of EU policies on ecosystem services 29
5.1 Introduction 29
5.2 Results 30
5.3 Greening the CAP 32
5.4 Policy analysis of the pollination service 35
6. References 39
Summary
Mainstreaming ecosystem services in EU decision making processes requires a solid conceptual and
methodological framework for mapping and assessing ecosystem services that serve the multiple
objectives addressed by policies. The PRESS-2 study (PEER Research on EcoSystem Services Phase
2) provides such an analytical framework which enables the operationalization of the present scientifc
knowledge base of environmental data and models for application by the EU and Member States for
mapping and assessment of ecosystem services. This study is structured along three strands of work:
policy and scenario analysis, mapping and valuation. Linking maps of ecosystem services supply to
monetary valuation allows an analysis of the expected impact of policy measures on benefts derived
from ecosystem services.
The frst case study looks at water purifcation and demonstrates the three-step assessment cycle,
investigating the impacts of agricultural and water policy scenarios on the capacity of ecosystems to
purify water and on the benefts that are derived from improved water quality at different spatial scales.
In general, the conclusion is that greening the CAP, would improve water quality and increase the benefts
to society as measured via monetary valuation. Yet, reduction rates differed between the different levels
(EU and basin scale) suggesting that the assessment of policy measures is scale-dependent, which, in
turn, justifes our multi-scale assessment approach.
The second case study (recreation) presents evidence that millions of people visited forests several
times per year and they expressed their willingness to pay to continue doing so. The visitor statistics that
are used in this study confrm the usefulness of the ROS approach (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum)
to identify areas in terms of their accessibility and potential to provide recreation services. In addition,
PRESS-2 presents a spatial analysis of city population density and green urban areas.
The third case study regards pollination. Pollination services offered by insects such as wild bees and
bumblebees are essential to maintain crop production, in particular of fruits and vegetables. PRESS-2
demonstrates that the coverage and resolution of current datasets are already suffcient to map the
potential of ecosystems to provide this ecosystem service. However, future research should contribute
to better ecological observations of key pollinator species to include important drivers of pollinators
abundance in modelling and mapping approaches.
Europe has ambitious biodiversity and ecosystem services targets. Much of the ambition incorporated
in the targets rests on the premise that ecosystem services are dependent on biodiversity for which
there is indeed a substantial amount of evidence. Achieving biodiversity targets requires prioritizing
investments and making them cost effective based on a sound knowledge base and assessment
methods, which PRESS has contributed to. Our approaches show that the inclusion of the ecosystem
services concept into policies would allow a systematic review of the consequences of policy measures
for services beyond conventional environmental assessments. In order to be able to react and adapt to
new circumstances, consequences of policies must be continuously monitored and fexible in design.
Therefore, it is necessary to quantify goals and determine baseline levels describing what the situation
was before the measure against which progress is verifable. However, research is only one element of
the necessary efforts to restore natural ecosystems and to preserve biodiversity in Europe. Therefore,
the PRESS-2 team reiterates the conclusion of the frst report and calls for a broad collaboration of
all stakeholders involved, including researchers, policy makers, stakeholder groups and citizens, in an
integrated ecosystem services approach.
1. Introduction
The policy context
The concept of ecosystem services (ESS) is now integrated in current biodiversity policies at global and
European level (CBD 2010; EC 2011a). The policies describe how ecosystems and biodiversity are to
be incorporated into public and business decision making, and indicate where natural resources are
currently undervalued, and sometimes neglected. The inclusion of ESS into biodiversity policies is largely
the result of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) and the TEEB initiative (The Economics
of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2010a,b). These studies have led to political acknowledgement (at the
level of the United Nations) of the concept of ESS and advocate for a better understanding of the links
between biodiversity, ecosystem functions, ecosystem services, their benefts and associated social and
economic values as part of human well-being.
In particular, the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (EC 2011a) integrates the sustainable use of ecosystem
services as underpinning element of human economies which complements the non-utilitarian
conservation approach to biodiversity, thus contributing to the Europe 2020 targets
1
, in particular
through the resource effciency fagship initiative
2
. This initiative aims at building smart, sustainable
and inclusive growth for Europe. It establishes resource effciency as the guiding principle for EU policies
on energy, transport, climate change, industry, commodities, agriculture, fsheries, biodiversity and
regional development. In addition, the ecosystem service concept has been identifed as one of the
pillars of the assessment of impacts in the preparation of the 2012 European Commissions Blueprint
to Safeguard Europes Water Resources (EC 2012). Furthermore, restoring and preserving ecosystem
services is one of six priorities identifed by the rural development pillar in the new proposal for the
EUs Common Agricultural Policy (EC 2011i). Importantly, the EUs regional and cohesion policy now
recognizes the importance of investing in natural ecosystems as a source of economic development
aligning regional development targets with the Europe 2020 agenda (EC 2011j).
Much of the ambition incorporated in the targets and actions of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020
rests on the premise that ecosystem services are dependent on biodiversity. And there is indeed a
substantial amount of evidence demonstrating the dependency of specifc ecosystem services on
specifc aspects of biodiversity. However, there is still much to be researched and validated, both at the
experimental level and at the feld observation and measurement level (see e.g. Cardinale et al., 2012).
Much of the discussion on the relationships between biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem
services is confused because the relationships are considered at the level of these so-called container
concepts. Attempts to depict such relationships end up as a cloud of dots in a scatter plot. Another part
of the confusion stems from the often undisclosed assumption that biodiversity is best represented
by species richness, and subsequently suffciently represented by aboveground species only, and then
mostly vertebrates.
In Braat and Ten Brink (2008) it was suggested that mean species abundance of a cross section of
species of the ecosystem considered could usefully represent its potential to provide ecosystem services,
1 http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets/index_en.htm
2 http://ec.europa.eu/resource-effcient-europe/
with provisioning services having often only one, and occasionally a few, targeted species above-ground
determining the service levels, and the associated economic values. But of course hundreds, if not
thousands of species, did their work, usually not recognized, below the surface (insects, nematodes,
fungi, bacteria). The regulating services are by defnition dependent on the functional dimensions of
ecosystems, and thus on the biological diversity of functional traits, and on key species in production
and recycling, and in providing structure and spatial heterogeneity. Finally, species richness is of course
a very important element of the cultural services, both as visible diversity components in space and
through time, and as identifable carriers of useful information, the common denominator of this class
of services. Some of these contentions have been substantiated by now (see Maes et al., 2012), others
are still being tested.
When mapping ecosystem services, the defnition of the service fow, its source stock and production
process, the choice of indicators, and by that the visualisation of the aspects of biological diversity of
the service producing system will have to become part of the meta-data of the maps (and possibly in the
legend). This is a still a major endeavour for most ecosystem services!
In the recent past it has become more evident to policy makers that nature-based solutions for social and
economic problems and challenges, e.g. using wetland ecosystems for water purifcation, food protection
or carbon storage, may indeed be more cost-effective and resource effcient than technical infrastructures
for enhancing resilience. Taking into consideration a probable future of decreasing resource availability
in Europe and worldwide, the protection of the fow of services provided by ecosystems would contribute
to delivering a sustainable, low carbon society and help progress towards the Europe 2020 targets on
climate and energy. Assimilation of the ecosystem service concept calls for the economic valuation of
ecosystem services and for a transparent incorporation into policy processes and decision-making. This
implies placing ecosystems and biodiversity at the centre of sectoral policies, integrating them into the
spatial planning of water and land, and making explicit the costs of ecosystem service degradation and
biodiversity loss as well as the benefts from conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.
The PRESS study
Mainstreaming natural capital and ecosystem services into policy and decision making requires a
scientifcally sound knowledge base, which should provide a better understanding of the complex
consequences of decision making of the private and public sector at different geographical policy levels.
Furthermore, a better understanding is needed of the ecological production functions and their specifc
relationships with aspects of biodiversity, which are at the basis of ecosystem services. The PRESS (PEER
Research on EcoSystem Services) project was conceived during the TEEB meetings in 2009 and started
in early 2010 to contribute to this knowledge base by advancing methods to map, assess and valuate
ecosystem services at multiple spatial scales
3
. The project has addressed some of the knowledge gaps
which stand in the way of performing a spatially-explicit, biophysical, monetary and policy assessment
of ecosystem services. The focus has been on Europe, the Member States of the EU and sub-national
regions. The starting point was the need to upgrade the knowledge base on land-use mapping to refect
the existing knowledge about ecosystem services and their social and economic values, and to better
inform policy design and decision making processes.
3 PEER is the Partnership for European Environmental Research, a network of Institutes which includes Alterra
Wageningen UR (the Netherlands), CEH (U.K.), Irstea (France), DCE Danish Centre for Environment and Energy
at Aarhus University (Denmark), SYKE (Finland), Helmoltz Centre for Environmental Research UFZ (Germany)
and the European Commissions JRC-IES
In the PRESS-phase 1 report (Maes et al. 2011) we demonstrated methodologies to map ecosystem
services. In particular, this report delivered models for mapping at different spatial scales the role of
ecosystems as providers of recreation to citizens and the function of river networks in providing clean
water. It demonstrated how the introduction of ecosystem services into biodiversity policy has resulted
in synergies and trade-offs with other policies regulating agriculture, fsheries or forestry, each of which
has strong impacts on biodiversity and conservation. The report includes an analysis of policy options,
which shows that the perception of which services are provided by ecosystems varies according to the
respondents, the geographical characteristics of the regions and the scales of decision making. This
suggests then the type of assessment that territorial managers need to carry out. Finally, we pointed to
the need for the development of hierarchical sets of ecosystem service indicators, following the SEBI-
2010 example (Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators; EEA, 2010), but geographically explicit
and linked to the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2011-2020, and in particular the supporting Action 5 (under
Target 2) which calls on the EU Member States to map, assess and value ecosystem services on their
national territory.
Outline of the PRESS Phase 2 Synthesis report
This Synthesis report contains the results of the second phase of the PRESS project which has extended
the mapping and policy analysis with scenarios and monetary valuation.
Water purifcation (chapter 2) relates to the role ecosystems play in the fltration and decomposition of
organic wastes and pollutants in water, and the assimilation and detoxifcation of compounds through
sediment, soil and subsoil processes. In particular, this case study examines how scenarios of land use
change (as a result of a change in agricultural policy) and of river and wetland restoration affect the
biophysical fow and the monetary value of this service.
Both natural and managed ecosystems provide a source of outdoor recreation as people enjoy walking
in forests, watching birds in wetlands or hiking and camping in the outdoors. The recreation case study
(chapter 3) builds on maps that express the recreation opportunity spectrum which combines recreation
potential with accessibility to sites. The case study explores a scenario of expected demographic changes
and makes an assessment of the service fows.
Pollination services are mainly delivered by bees and bumblebees when transferring pollen between
fower parts increasing the probability of fertilization. Many crops are, to various degrees, dependent on
pollination to produce fruits. This case study (chapter 4) quantifes the relative abundance of pollinators
and estimates the contribution of ecosystems to crop pollination.
A literature based policy analysis (chapter 5) explores how EU policies and their implications at Member
State and local level affect the supply of ecosystem services or may lead to trade-offs.
With these three case studies and the policy analysis we aim to illustrate how current knowledge and data
on land cover, water resources, ecosystem properties, nutrient dynamics and climate can be combined to
estimate biophysical fows of ecosystem services and their associated benefts and social and economic
values. It is important to note that when we refer to biodiversity in this report, we do not only mean
species richness, but do imply all functional and structural aspects of the biological diversity of the
ecosystem discussed. As such, the PRESS project contributes to on-going initiatives that aim to increase
our knowledge on ecosystems and to integrate them into the common implementation framework (CIF)
of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.
This Synthesis report of the main results and achievements of this study is accompanied by a Technical
report which presents and documents the different approaches and methodologies that have been used
and reports extensively on the results.
2 Mapping and assessment
of water purifcation services
at multiple spatial scales
Policy messages
Water purifcation is a crucial ecosystem service as the self-cleaning capacity of wetlands, rivers,
streams and lakes results in the provision of clean water for multiple uses. This service averts
costs for society, since the treatment of mainly diffuse pollution is diffcult using technological
solutions only.
The water purifcation study demonstrates the full assessment cycle by investigating the
impacts of agricultural and water policy scenarios on the capacity of ecosystems to purify water
and on the benefts that are derived from improved water quality at different spatial scales.
Biodiversity cleans streams: the more biodiversity a river holds, the faster nitrogen is removed
from the water (Cardinale, 2011). Although this PRESS study was not able to upscale this
experimentally derived observation to the scale of river catchments, biodiversity was considered
at ecosystem level, since the high nitrogen removal rates of wetlands are accounted for in the
models.
The scenarios of greening of the Common Agricultural Policy, introducing measures to reduce
fertilizer application and the restoration of wetlands, resulted in positive effects on water
purifcation services, improved water quality and increased the benefts to society as measured
via monetary valuation.
Yet, reduction rates differed between the different levels (EU and basin scale) suggesting that
the assessment of policy measures is scale-dependent, which in turn justifes our multi-scale
assessment approach.
Introduction
Freshwater aquatic ecosystems, and more specifcally the biotic communities in lakes, rivers and
foodplains, interacting with the waterlogged soils, have the capacity to retain, process and remove
pollutants, sediments and excess nutrients. This water purifcation service reduces the quantity of
pollutants of downstream waters and more importantly to the human settlements in the region, it
contributes to the availability of clean water for multiples uses.
In this chapter, we present four case studies which cover different spatial scales to illustrate how benefts
from water purifcation services can be accounted for using nitrogen as a common water quality indicator
(Figure 2.1).
The starting point of the assessment is a policy change with a focus on the new Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP; EC 2011i) and on a new water policy at EU scale (Blueprint to Safeguard Europes Water
Resources; EC 2012). A number of specifc policy measures (greening measures under the CAP, nitrogen
reduction measures and river and wetland restoration) were analysed using scenarios of land use
change as a consequence of the policy measures relative to a baseline. Biophysical models were used
to estimate how changing land use affected water purifcation as indicated by nitrogen retention. Finally,
the economic value of the improved water quality, due to the nitrogen removal, was assessed via costs
saved for downstream water treatment and by willingness to pay for clean water.
Figure 2.1. Scenario-based approach for the assessment of water purifcation services at different spatial scales in Europe.
Nitrogen (N) was used as a common water-quality metric.
Results
Table 2.1 summarizes the most important results of the study by showing the direction of change of water
purifcation services delivered by the aquatic ecosystems in a range of scenarios of land use change as
a consequence of the policy measures. The overall conclusion was that greening the CAP, introducing
measures to reduce fertilizer application, and the restoration of wetlands all resulted in increased levels
of the water purifcation services, improved water quality and increased benefts to society as measured
via monetary valuation.
Table 2.1. Direction of change in water purifcation following the implementation of different scenarios in four different case
study areas.
Scenarios and measures Europe
UK
Ouse catchment
FI
Lepsmnjoki
Ylneenjoki
catchments
DK
Odense
catchment
G
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

d
i
r
e
c
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s

(
C
A
P
)Permanent grassland
Crop rotation/ diversifcation

Ecological set aside
(ecological focus areas)

Green cover
Reduced fertilizer application
River restoration
Wetland restoration
: change in nitrogen retention less than 5%; : 5% decrease in nitrogen retention; : 5% increase in nitrogen retention
Greening the CAP
The difference in effects between a generic European scenario on greening direct payments relative to the
catchment specifc scenarios is apparent. At European scale, losses in arable land and certain crops in one
area are predicted to be compensated for in other areas, since EU food demand is not expected to change
substantially. As a result, the overall change in land use, nitrogen input and nitrogen retention is relatively
small. It follows that the benefts (avoided treatment costs) at aggregated EU scale (arising from reduced
nitrogen application) were
equally small (see Figure
2.2). At the catchment
scale, however, the
greening measures were
predicted to result in
increased benefts. Figure
2.3 illustrates this for the
Finnish case.
This suggests that local and
regional implementation of
EU legislation may enable
a more rigid enforcement
of measures without
considering the impacts
on other areas, explaining
why greening measures
result in increased local
benefts but may have
negative effects on other regions.
Figure 2.2. Assessment of avoided treatment costs comparing
the EU-GREENCAP scenario relative to the EU-BAU (Business as Usual).
(1) The UK study (Table 2.2) includes two measures: an area measure, the Environmentally Sensitive Area
scheme and a pro constraint, a farm-level compulsory rate of ecological set-aside. They are predicted to
have signifcant benefcial effects as measured by the effectiveness (the ratio between output load for
each scenario relative to the baseline).
Table 2.2. Scenario assessment of basin-wide nitrate-N fuxes and concentrations for the river Ouse catchment.

Diffuse
sources
(ton year
-1
)
River
retention
(ton year
-1
)
River
retention
(%)
Output
load
(ton year
-1
)
N
at outlet
(mg l
-1
)
Effectiveness
(%)
Baseline 8961 783 8.17 8798 4.67
Environmentally
Sensitive Area
8263 723 8.13 8160 4.33 7.25
20% set-aside 8044 707 8.16 7956 4.22 9.57
(2) The Danish scenarios (Table 2.3) are characterised by signifcant average reductions in fertilizer
application relative to the baseline, in particular in those scenarios that involve taxation of fertilizer.
This results in lower nitrogen loads to lakes and to the coastal zone and yields benefts measured by
willingness to pay (WTP) to achieve a better ecological status (based on the quality criteria of the Water
Framework Directive).
Table 2.3. Changes in average fertiliser application, N-retention and the benefts in terms of water quality improvements
predicted for the scenarios of the Danish case study.
Scenario
Fertiliser
reduction
(kg/ha)
N load
to Fjord
(ton)
N
retention
(ton)
P
reduction to
lakes (kg)
Water
quality
Fjord
Water
quality
Lake
WTP
Million
year
-1
Baseline model 1838 n/a Poor Poor
Low fertilizer tax 79 1479 359 n/a Moderate n/a 31.3
High fertilizer tax 101 1404 434 n/a Moderate n/a 31.3
Set aside 15% 12 1715 123 342 Poor Good 34.4
Set aside 25% 24 1570 268 538 Poor
Very
Good
27.9
Wetland
restoration
1747 91 n/a Poor n/a
(3) The Finnish scenario is based on the greening measures as proposed by the new CAP proposal:
ecological set aside area increase up to 10-15% of the total crop area; crop diversifcation with at least 3
crops cultivated and spring cereals cover <40% of feld area; grass cover >10% of feld area. This scenario
differs from the EU scenario in that it includes an additional measure of 50% of total crop area under
wintertime vegetation. The scenario with fertilizer reduction assumes 100% of the area under reduced
fertilization with a nitrogen balance decreased to 20 kg N ha-1 and manure spreading allowed only during
the growing season. Reduced fertilizer application, vegetation cover during winter, and ecological set
aside are predicted to result in additional benefts. Crop diversifcation is, contrary to general fndings,
predicted to increase nitrogen application (as a result of case specifc conditions) and will invoke costs
(Figure 2.3).
Wetland and foodplain restoration
Biodiversity was not included explicitly in the models used in this study. Yet, more and more it becomes
clear that biodiversity positively infuences ecosystem functions that are essential to provide ecosystem
services. For instance, Cardinale (2011) showed that a higher diversity of the community of algal species
increased the nitrogen uptake capacity justifying efforts to protect and conserve aquatic biodiversity.
Upscaling parameters that describe the biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships to landscape level
in order to make inferences on ecosystem services still requires basic research, which was not possible
in this study (Cardinale et al. 2012). However, biodiversity can be considered at ecosystem level as
well and in the study we demonstrate that wetland and foodplain restoration are shown to contribute
signifcantly to the reduction of nitrogen in surface waters and decrease the loading to European coastal
zones. This was also confrmed by the Danish case study. Additional benefts that are derived from
wetland restoration but which were not valuated in this study, are food protection, increased habitat for
species, in particular birds, and enhanced opportunities for particular forms of recreation.
Figure 2.3. Value
( ha
-1
) generated by water
purifcation services for
four different measures
(Finnish case study)
3 Mapping and assessment
of outdoor recreation at
multiple spatial scales
Policy messages
Recreation in nature (outdoor recreation) is likely one of the most clearly perceived benefts
of ecosystems to people. Many people have experienced the sheer enjoyment of walking in
forests, seeing beautiful fowers and animals in the outdoors or picnicking with the family on
a lakeshore. This is shown by the high visitation rates of forests and natural areas. The visitor
statistics that were used in this study confrm the usefulness of the ROS approach (Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum) to identify areas in terms of their accessibility and potential to provide
recreation services.
Biodiversity is an important variable in the modelling approach. In the recreation study,
biodiversity is approximated in an explicit way using spatial data on naturalness but also
implicitly by including the Natura2000 network layer.
Millions of people have visited forests several times per year and they expressed their
willingness to pay to continue doing so. The magnitude of estimates provided by the case study
areas proves that such value may easily be in a range of billions of euros, and may increase if
the avoided cost for health care due to recreation restorative and stress reduction capacity is
included.
A spatial analysis of city population density and green urban areas is used to bring nature closer
to citizens. The analysis can identify where investment in nature will increase the capacity
of ecosystems to provide this essential service to people taking into account demographic
evolution, urbanization and modes of transport.
Though the issue is not yet addressed in literature under the umbrella of ecosystem services,
the restorative and stress reduction capacity of ecosystems would be a major theme for
research. It is in fact reported that wilderness and the natural environment in general do have
restorative capacities on humans. Accessibility to these areas is therefore important also from
this point of view.
Introduction
Cultural ecosystem services are defned as non-material benefts people obtain from ecosystems through
spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, refection, recreation and aesthetic experience. In all these
forms of cultural services, the essential process is the fow of information from ecosystems, while
humans have to invest in obtaining that information through developing accessibility to the ecosystems,
and exposing themselves to the information.
This section shows how ecosystems can provide recreation (the re-creating process within humans)
as a beneft to citizens. More specifcally, the type of recreation addressed here relates to the benefts
obtained in daily life, ranging from e.g. the pleasure of reading a newspaper while sitting in the closest
green urban area, a bike ride after work, to a day trip to a nature area. All ecosystems are considered to
be potential providers of the service, irrespective of their conservation status (biodiversity level), though
the type and level of service provision changes accordingly. Tourism and long distance (>100 km) travel
were not included in this study, as this would have required a different approach.
The mapping and assessment of recreation services offered by ecosystems was structured along the
ecosystem services cascade model (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010; De Groot et al. 2010; Figure
3.1). Firstly, we mapped for different case studies the potential of different ecosystems, including urban
ones, to provide recreation. The ROS approach (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) presented in the frst
PRESS report (Maes et al. 2011) has been refned and applied at the EU level and at the national level for
Finland. A local scale study was carried out on green urban areas, as these are an increasingly important
source of recreation given the growing share of human populations in towns and cities. Secondly, we
reported on the efforts to assess the number people that recreate in nature by evaluating a number of
visitor statistics based on surveys or analysis of existing data. Thirdly, the monetary value of the benefts
of the recreation services was estimated based on travel costs. Finally, a scenario of land use change,
including demographic projections to 2030, shows how the provision of recreation may consequently
change.
Figure 3.1. Application of the ecosystem services cascade model as an analytical framework to map and assess recreation in nature.
Results
The usefulness of the ROS concept
A frst conclusion of this study regards the usefulness of the ROS concept to map the potential of
ecosystems to provide recreation (Figure 3.2). The survey data of the different case studies confrm
the assumption that the environments where people like to recreate are linked to the quality of the
natural area and the presence of water. In particular the Danish approach concludes that forests which
are receiving more than half a million visits per year are those that are categorised in the ROS model
with predominantly high recreation opportunity provision while forests categorised as medium recreation
opportunity provision received less than half a million visitors.
Another important confrmation of the validity of the ROS model is coming from the analysis of travelled
distance. A main assumption in the EU-wide exercise was that all ecosystem types had to be analysed
as potential sources for recreation, and not only the most valuable ones in terms of the quality of the
natural area and biodiversity. In fact, if someone wants to recreate in nature shortly after work, or bring
the children for a stroll, he or she does not have a wide selection of ecosystems available to go to in the
limited area surrounding his or her home. It is therefore important to understand what the characteristics
of current provision are, to be able to improve it. Results from 23 analysed EU countries show that on
average 35% of the population can easily reach sites with a high potential for recreation. Areas with a
relatively high degree of naturalness (forests are considered as such) provide multiple ecosystem services
(Maes et al. 2011), some of which have positive effects on human health (i.e. air quality regulation).
Figure 3.2. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) for Europe classifes ecosystems in three classes of
accessibility and three classes of recreation potential.
Accessibility
The analysis made at country level provides some ideas on how accessibility can be granted. Some
countries have an inherent high provision of recreation potential. For instance, in Sweden and Finland the
boreal environment is characterised by a high degree of naturalness. In countries where this provision
is lower due to intensive agriculture (for instance Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy) the network
of protected areas is a major element in ensuring potential recreation provision. Intensive agriculture
mostly takes place in lowlands, where many major European cities are also located and millions of
people live. In Italy, a high recreation potential is mostly provided by areas in the hills and mountains,
which are further away from millions of citizens than the average distance of close-to-home trips. On
the contrary, countries like Germany show a more evenly distributed network of protected areas on the
national territory.
Surrounding environment
The fact that the surrounding environment is crucially important is demonstrated by the Finnish survey
(Figure 3.3), which shows the importance of the everymans right (the right to have public access to the
land). About 80% of close-to-home trips are made to this type of environment. The total number of close-
to-home trips accounts for over 500 million trips per year. The Danish survey provides high estimates
for trips to nearby forests, estimated at over 26 million per year in the Copenhagen and Frederiksborg
regions only (Figure 3.4). The fact that the surroundings are important in recreation analysis highlights
the role of urban green areas (Figure 3.5). Also in this case spatial distribution matters, and has the
double effect of providing a higher number of residents with recreation potential, and of diminishing
visitor pressure on each area. Statistics in the Netherlands show that availability of green urban areas to
people living in a 500 m surrounding range from 14 to 56 m
2
, with an average around 30 m
2
.
Economic valuation
In the Finland case, the analysis of consumer surplus estimates per trip, shows that leisure homes in
general and in Northern Finland as a region stand out from the others. Furthermore, the value of a trip
to State owned land in Northern Finland is calculated to be almost twice as high as the value of a trip to
State owned land in other parts of the country. Trips to everymans right area in Northern Finland provide
a consumer surplus that is about 45% higher than trips to the same type of site elsewhere in Finland.
The total value of the recreation service is estimated at several hundreds of M for the capital city. The
Danish study on forests in the Copenhagen and Frederiksborg regions concludes that the willingness to
pay for car access ranges from 1 to 12 million per site. There were 52 forests analysed so the total
value is exceeding 50 million for just one type of ecosystem.
Scenario analysis
The scenario analysis links land use modelling, a population growth scenario and recreation provision.
The scenario applied on Finland is a Business as Usual scenario towards 2030. Results show that under
current conditions changes are very small. Results of the Danish case indicate that with an increase of
240 000 of the population living in the municipality of Copenhagen over a 20-year period, forests closest
to Copenhagen would receive between 106 000 and 1 million additional trips (equivalent to 10-32%
increase). Changes in the value of car access show in some locations a reduction of 134 000 per year
while in other locations recreation services would yield as much as 2.8 million.
Figure 3.3. Finnish case study results.
The Finnish case study is based on data from the
national outdoor recreation demand inventory
(LVVI2) by the Finnish Forest Research Institute.
Top Left: An improved ROS map for Finland with
inclusion of the everymans right areas (areas
owned by private landowners, municipalities or
State where the use is based on public access to
the land).
Bottom left. Survey statistics show that areas of
everymans right are very important for recreation by
Finnish population and that second homes (summer
cottages) also play a relevant role in recreation
activities. In Finland, 80% of respondents travel a
maximum of 8 km for recreation highlighting the
importance of the potential provision of recreation
by ecosystems in the surroundings of places of
residence.
Top Right. The value (million km
-2
) of close-to-
home visits to areas under everymans right
Source: Metla/LVVI2 data
Figure 3.4. Danish case study results.
The Danish case study is based on a national
household survey from 1994 used to estimate
how many trips per year people make to forests
for recreation in the regions of Copenhagen and
Frederiksborg (North Zealand), totalling 662 people.
Top Left: ROS categorisation of forest sites included
in the case study.
Bottom left. Total number of forest recreation
day trips per site. Based on these statistics it is
estimated that the total of yearly car trips to the 52
forests amounts to 14.5 million and trips with other
means of transport sum to 12.1 million trips. On
average, each adult in the region makes 23.5 trips
per year to these forests.
Top Right. The willingness to pay for car access
to forests (million per site per year). The most
valuable site (Willingness to Pay for car access
close to 12 million per year) is a former royal
hunting forest and is today the most visited natural
area in Denmark.
It is premature to draw EU-wide conclusions from this study on the value of recreation as ecosystem
service. Nevertheless, the magnitude of estimates provided by the case study areas proves that such
value may easily be in a range of billions of euros, and may increase if the avoided cost for health care
due to recreation restorative and stress reduction capacity is included.
The potential of Green Urban Areas (GUAs) to provide recreation ecosystem
services
Surveys clearly show the strong relation between recreational activities and the origin of recreational
trips (the places of residence of people recreating). Under this perspective, the role of Green Urban Areas
(GUAs) cannot be neglected. GUAs are in fact main sources of recreation provision by ecosystems for
populations living in urban centres.
Using the potential number of people per GUA for the urban zones as a proxy to value the potential of
Green Urban Areas to provide recreation services, Figure 3.5 shows for the city of The Hague, lying at
the Dutch coast, that both the green areas situated in the city centre and the dune areas in the urban
periphery provide potential recreational services to many people within a 500m distance. Compared to
The Hague, recreational services in the city of Amsterdam are provided more by small GUAs in the city
centre (Figure 3.6). A second proxy to value the potential of GUA to provide recreation ecosystem services
is the amount of green area per person. The dune areas in The Hague provide a higher service in terms
of area per person than the green areas in the city centre.
Considering the number of people within 500 m of a GUA as the demand for recreation, and the area
of that GUA as the supply, a selection of GUAs can be made. In Figure 3.7 the areas with high demand
and high supply (thus potentially providing a high amount of green space to many people) are marked
in green, high demand and low supply (thus potentially providing a low amount of green space to many
people) are marked in red. Compared to Figure 3.6, showing the number of people within 500 m of GUAs,
this map provides a different interpretation of recreation provision. Some sites like the dune areas, for
example, provide recreation potential to many more residents than the smaller green areas in the city,
which may therefore be less congested.
Using of available datasets in a simple and transparent way that can be applied at European level,
recreation ecosystem services provided by green urban areas can be analysed effectively. The
calculations do not take into account people working only in the cities, relevant in many European city
centres. The distance of 500 m was based on the assumption that people will walk to the GUA, while in
some countries cycling, or going by car or public transport will be more common.
Figure 3.5. Number of people
within 500m of GUAs in the Dutch
city of The Hague
Figure 3.6. Number of people
within 500m of GUAs in the Dutch
city of Amsterdam
Figure 3.7. Demand/supply ratios
for GUAs in the Dutch city of
Amsterdam
4. Mapping and stakeholder
assessment of pollination services
at multiple spatial scales
Policy messages
Pollination services offered by insects such as wild bees and bumblebees are essential to
maintain crop production, in particular of fruit and vegetables. PRESS demonstrated that
the coverage and resolution of current datasets are already suffcient to map the potential of
ecosystems to provide this ecosystem service.
Importantly, this study shows how functional traits of pollinator biodiversity can be used to map
pollination potential of ecosystems.
The concept of ecosystem services was expressed to be useful by interviewed stakeholders, but
it has opened up new questions about responsibilities and liabilities. Many stakeholders feel
they have all the relevant information. Instead, operationalization of scientifc information and
development of good social practices were identifed as key concerns, and they think informal
practices and codes of conduct are also an important aspect of pollinator conservation.
However, better ecological observations of key pollinator species are needed to include
important drivers of pollinator-abundance in modelling and mapping approaches which were
not included in the study, for instance the use of pesticides or the presence of pollinator-
supporting habitats in the landscape.
Introduction
The productivity of many agricultural crops, in particular of fruits and vegetables, depends on the
presence of pollinating insects. The dependence of several European crops on pollination and the high
monetary value associated with crop pollination makes it relevant to society to delineate places where
nature has the potential to provide pollination services.
This study presents a mapping approach to assess the relative importance of pollination to European
agricultural crops. The approach is based on the evidence that different habitats, but in particular forest
edges, grasslands rich in fowers and riparian areas, offer suitable sites to host populations of wild
pollinator insects such as solitary bees, bumblebees or hoverfies. Pollination as an ecosystem service
was studied in four case studies across Europe.
Figure 4.1. Relative pollinator abundance across Europe.
Results
EU level
At the European scale, a map of pollination potential was produced (Figure 4.1). Spatial data of land cover
and land use were transformed into indicators for nesting suitability and foral resource availability. Next,
these indicators were combined with climate data to simulate pollinator activity and map the relative
pollination abundance at a landscape scale. The mapping method was based on the InVEST model of the
Natural Capital Project (Kareiva et al. 2011).
The relative pollinator abundance is modelled to increase from northern to southern Europe corresponding
to the modelled temperature-dependent activity rate of bees and bumblebees. Given temperature,
pollination potential is expected to be low in areas where the dominant land use is arable land used
for production of cereals, such as the east of the United Kingdom, areas in France surrounding the
capital, areas in central Spain, the Po plain in Italy, areas in northern Germany, Poland and Slovakia and
the along the borders of the Danube in Bulgaria and Romania. These areas are assumed to have low
pollinator nesting suitability and to offer limited resources for foraging due to an absence of plants with
fowers carrying nectar. At aggregated EU level, 23.6% of the total production of crops which depend
on pollination could be assigned to insect pollination. This fgure corresponds to a production defcit
if no pollination services were offered by insects. This value decreased to 1% if all crop production is
considered, including the large share crops that are not dependent on pollination.
The Finland case
The Finnish case study is based on a similar mapping approach but the spatial scale of assessment
was fner. Maps of the relative pollinator abundance at different spatial scales have been compared to
maps of pollination demand indicated by the distribution of insect-pollinated crops. The availability of
pollination services was generally highest in the north and lowest in the south-east, whereas the demand
for insect pollination had just the opposite pattern (Figure 4.2). These patterns are better seen in the
scale of the 10 km grid than in the smaller grid sizes and they are largely due to the differences in land
cover by forest and arable land between the northern and southern parts. In the northern part cultivated
felds tend to be smaller and thereby the distances to forest edges with high pollination availability tend
to remain small, whereas in the southern part arable felds constitute much larger cultivated open areas
with low availability of pollination services and the distribution of insect-pollinated crops follow the
general distribution of arable areas.
Figure 4.2. Finnish case study on pollination with maps showing the supply and demand
Figure 4.3. Distribution of oil seed rape crops, the species richness of its wild pollinators, and the potential for pollination
mismatches. Pink shades indicate high overlap between crops and pollinator richness and light blue shades show low over-
lap. Dark blue indicates areas where no crop are grown.
The Finnish high resolution maps (grid size of 25 m) are useful in the local planning of the implementation of
agri-environmental measures, because they can help identify localities where pollination demand is high
but pollination services are scarce, and where practical mitigation measures are needed. These maps
also illustrate that even small patches of woodland in the middle of large feld parcels can potentially act
as important pollinator source habitats in agricultural landscapes. This stresses again the importance of
green infrastructure elements as a way of providing multiple services, including pollination.
The case study shows that mapping pollination is very sensitive to scale. The Rekijoki river valley has the
largest existing aggregation of species-rich semi-natural grasslands in Finland. It represents a nationally
unique area with a high conservation priority and is a national pollinator insect hotspot with several
threatened species. This is easily visible in the 25 m and 500 m grid maps. However, in the 10 km grid
map this area receives a lower than average value in the availability of pollination services, because the
areas surrounding the river valley are relatively intensively cultivated arable areas with generally a low
pollination service level. This example highlights that, whereas the availability of pollination services for
cultivated crops may be optimal in landscapes with relatively even distribution of suitable bumblebee
habitat (in the northern areas of the Finnish case study area), this does not mean that these same
landscapes would be best for conservation of pollinator insect diversity.
The UK case
The UK case study maps two sets of indicators for pollination services using empirical data of the
richness of nectar-carrying plants, of insect-pollinated crops and of crop pollinator richness across the
British landscape. A main result of the UK study is that much of the insect-pollinated crops grown in Great
Britain are planted in the south and east of Britain, whereas their wild fower resources follow a tendency
towards the south and west. More detailed analyses of single insect-pollinated crop species (oil-seed
rape and feld bean, Figure 4.3) or groups of ecologically similar species (fruit trees and berries) suggest
that there is potential for spatial mismatches between crops and their wild pollinators at least in certain
regions of the country.
A difference between the UK and European level case studies was that the UK study has produced a map
on pollinator species richness (based on real species distribution data), whereas the European mapping
has estimated relative pollinator abundance. While it seems reasonable that pollinator abundance is
more important than species richness for the supply of effective pollination services, diverse pollinator
communities may, however, provide a degree of redundancy or functional complementarity in the
pollination system. Such diversity may therefore underpin service resilience in the face of environmental
changes that extirpate species.
Stakeholder views
From interviews conducted as part of the policy analysis it became evident that the stakeholders at
regional and local levels focused more their attention on managed bees instead of wild pollinators.
However, it remains to be seen if the commercialization of pollination services creates more interest in
wild pollinators. Most of the stakeholders, when asked about the drivers behind pollinator loss, quoted
the market economy as a key driver. Perceptions were targeted at the socio-economic arena rather
than ecologic drivers or pressures. On the other hand this is concordant with the fact that economic
instruments, e.g. the agri-environment support, were seen as suitable tools for steering the situation.
Market economy and economic instruments were seen to be the two most important determinants of
crop cultivation and the measures and practices used.
The concept of ecosystem services was expressed to be useful by the stakeholders, but on the other
hand it has opened up new questions about responsibilities and liabilities. Especially the relations
between different policies and also the responsibilities of different stakeholders in the agricultural
business need to be clarifed and analysed. Many stakeholders hold the opinion that they dont lack
any relevant information. Instead, the operationalization of the scientifc information and development
of good social practices were identifed as key concerns. Based on the stakeholder interviews it can be
concluded that, in addition to scientifc knowledge and formal administrative tools, informal practices
and codes of conduct are important aspects of pollinator conservation.
More attention should apparently be paid to investigating the role of informal institutions and practices.
All of the interviewed people reacted positively to the maps which were shown during the discussions. The
method of valuing the landscape from the perspective of pollinators seemed to raise the stakeholders
interest. Yet they were also critical and suspicious about the application of these kinds of maps (fear of
bureaucracy or further control). Trust is a highly important issue when developing practices and measures
at the local level. When discussing pollination in the context of land use planning in administration,
the opinions did not give rise to optimism. Pollination as an ecosystem service takes place at smaller
geographical scales than the current land use planning processes.
5. The impacts of EU policies on
ecosystem services
Policy messages
Mapping, assessment and valuation of ecosystem services are necessary but not suffcient
steps in achieving the ecosystem services targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Following
the TEEB procedure (TEEB 2010b), capturing the value for society requires a thorough
understanding of the impacts of current policies on the ecosystems and more specifcally on
the mechanisms that determine the levels of the various ecosystem services. To know better
means to be able to manage better, and possibly more cost-effectively. Therefore, in this last
section of the PRESS-2 report, we discuss the state of knowledge and understanding of the
effects of EU policies on ecosystem services.
A great number of EU policies infuence ecosystems and the services they provide directly or
via social and economic drivers of change, though many of them still do so mostly implicitly
and unintentionally. International trade, agriculture, land use policies and nature conservation
together create a complex and still only partly understood mixture of policies.
Including the ecosystem services concept into all social and economic policies would allow
for a systematic review of the consequences of measures for services beyond conventional
environmental assessments. It would also help in identifying and including services such as
pollination, which are otherwise easily ignored.
Yet, even the most detailed literature review will not yield enough information to cover all
synergies and trade-offs of measures, because they are also highly dependent on site-specifc
factors such as soils, climate, slopes and management history.
An important aspect in designing the implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy is that it is
people at the local level that are often involved in actually implementing policy measures and
sometimes have the most relevant knowledge.
However, even when local knowledge is included, this is no guarantee that policy measures
achieve what it is being developed for. In order to be able to react and adapt to new circumstances
consequences of policies must be continuously monitored and fexible in design. Therefore, it
is necessary to quantify goals and determine baseline levels describing what the situation was
before the measure against which progress is verifable.
Introduction
The frst phase of the PRESS study (Maes et al. 2011) revealed that many Ecosystem Services (ESS) are
both targeted and affected by existing policies, even if ESS were not described explicitly as such. Examples
are agricultural policies, water policies, forest policies, and of course biodiversity and conservation
policies. However, Maes et al. (2011) also showed that the impacts of EU policies on ecosystem services
in general need to be examined in some depth, as many of these policies represent complex frameworks,
with multiple goals and measures that affect the services in different ways. This section provides a start
of such an analysis from a twofold perspective.
The frst perspective looks at the impact of a set of EU policies on ecosystem services and more precisely
at some of the measures that the policies suggest. More precisly, the effect of green infrastructure on
the provision of ESS is discussed. The green infrastructure approach advocated by the EU (European
Environmental Agency (EEA) 2011) is not a measure as such, but rather a strategy on the policy level
1
.
It is nevertheless included in the analysis on behalf of its relevance for biodiversity conservation and
because the approach is closely linked to the other measures discussed in this chapter. These other
measures comprise measures of new or future policies, namely the greening options of the future CAP,
as well as wetland restoration, a measure considered for the Blueprint to Safeguard Europes Water
Resources
2
. The second perspective of our analysis provides insights into how a specifc ecosystem
service, pollination, is affected by different EU policies. Both analyses are based on literature reviews,
which are not exhaustive.
Results
In Table 5.1 an overview is presented of the effects of policy measures which are part of the EU regulatory
policies and frameworks. The scores are explained in the next few pages describing each of the policy
columns. The table summarizes the results of a literature survey.
Table 5.1. Effect of policy measures on ecosystem services based on scientifc literature.
Class
of Eco-
system
Services
Ecosystem service
Green
infrastructure
in urban
areas
Ecological set aside/
ecological focus areas
Maintenance of permanent
grassland
Crop rotation
Diversi-
fcation
Wetland
resto-
ration
Fallow
land
Buffer
strips
Intensive
use
Extensive
use
P Biomass for energy & biofuels
P Crop production
P Livestock + +
P
Wild food (fsh, berries,
game, mushrooms)
+
R Climate regulation + + + +
R Regulation of water fows + + + +
R Water purifcation + + + +
R Air purifcation + +
R Soil fertility +
R Erosion control and prevention + +
R Pollination + + +
R Pest control +
H
Habitat provision and
connection
+ + + + +
C Recreation + + +
C Aesthetic information + + + + +
C
Cultural & inspira-tional
services
+ + +
Additional trade-offs Allergens
Invasive alien
species
Energy for
maintenance
Low
conservation
opportunities
Bare soils in fallow
land change the
direction of the effects
and increase erosion
and leaching of
pollutants
Extensive
grasslands
used for
livestock
production,
have
lowstocking
densities
High
recreation
rate
disturbs
animal
breeding
and nesting
+: Policy measure is expected to enhance the provision of ecosystem services
: Policy measure is expected to decrease the provision of ecosystem services
: Policy measure is expected to result in positive, negative or neutral effect depending on particular management approaches
1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm.
2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/index_en.htm.
Green infrastructure
Green infrastructure can be defned as a strategically planned and delivered network of high quality
green spaces and other environmental features
31
. Table 5.2 lists the elements that make up green
infrastructure.
Table 5.2. Elements that make up green infrastructure (Mazza et al. 2011).
Green Infrastructure
element (privately or
publically owned):
Includes:
Core areas Areas of high biodiversity importance, including large areas of
healthy and functioning ecosystems with minimal intervention
required, and smaller areas that require management; such
as Natura 2000 areas and other protected areas (e.g. IUCN
categories I, II and IV) or wilderness zones. All ecosystem types
could be part of such core areas: woodland, rivers & riparian
areas, lakes and ponds, wet- and peatlands, coastal and
upland/mountain areas, heath- and grassland.
Restoration zones Reforestation zones, new areas of habitat for specifc species or
restored ecosystems for service provision.
Sustainable use/Ecosystem
Service Zones
Areas that are managed sustainably for economic purposes,
whilst maintaining healthy ecosystems and proving a range
of ecosystem service benefts (e.g. multi-use forests and High
Nature Value farming systems). Such areas help maintain the
permeability of the land-/river-/townscape (i.e. enable species to
exist in the wider landscape and move between core areas)
Green urban and peri-urban
areas
Parks, gardens, urban forests, orchards, green walls, green
roofs, sustainable urban drainage systems.
Natural connectivity features Ecological corridors (containing landscape elements such as
hedgerows, wildlife strips, stone walls), stepping stones (i.e.
patches of habitat that enable species to move between core
areas), riparian river vegetation, etc.
Artifcial connectivity
features
Features that are designed specifcally to assist species
movement, such as green bridges (i.e. bridges that are covered
by an appropriate habitat to encourage the movement of
animals across them), tunnels and fsh passes.
In the context of urban planning and urban ecology, there is a vast body of literature about the potential
benefts of urban green space (or urban green infrastructure) designed to provide ecosystem services.
Managers and planners in cities are increasingly concerned about climate change and resulting
consequences such as fooding or extreme heat events. Biological carbon sequestration in urban tree
cover and soils has been suggested as a potential tool for climate change mitigation. There is the direct
removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the cooling effects of vegetation through shading
and transpiration, thus may reduce energy use for air conditioning. Another service of urban tree cover
is the improvement of air quality and thereby of human health as trees intercept the transport of air
pollutants. The services of urban green infrastructure also include the regulation of urban water quality
and quantity. The removal of pollutants by urban streams can be increased by adding coarse woody
debris, constructing in-channel gravel beds, and increasing the width of vegetation buffer zones and
3 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm.
tree cover. Vegetated landscapes such as green roofs and rain gardens can be used to reduce both the
amount of urban stormwater runoff and its pollution load. Apart from these regulating services, there are
a number of cultural services urban forests and parks provide e.g. outdoor recreation, nature observation,
photography, boating, swimming and fshing. Most of these services come at a cost. Potential disservices
listed are the increase of allergens, the promotion of invasive plants, host pathogens or pests.
Next to urban green infrastructure there is of course rural green infrastructure. According to the EEA
(2011), agri-environment measures make a major contribution to green infrastructure. Measures
discussed for the amendment of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 2013 could also help to support
the green infrastructure approach and therefore contribute to sustainable ecosystem services provision.
Greening the CAP
The greening option in the CAP is characterized by greening of direct payments (Pillar 1), i.e. 30 % of direct
support will be made conditional to greening. This means that farmers must engage in environmentally
supportive practices which will be defned in legislation and which will be verifable. The impact will be to
shift the agricultural sector in a more sustainable direction, with farmers receiving payments to deliver
public goods (and services) to their fellow citizens (European Commission 2011c). Concrete measures
discussed are ecological set-aside, buffer strips, the maintenance of permanent grassland and crop
rotation/diversifcation.
Ecological set aside/ecological focus areas
Ecological set-aside/ecological focus areas are a fxed percentage of the farm land put to an environmental
use rather than agricultural production. The fallowing of land has been a traditional practice, but this set-
aside decreased. It was re-introduced in 1988 as a voluntary and in 1992 as an obligatory supply control
mechanism within EU agricultural regulations. While the primary aim of the policy was to control the
supply of agricultural production, a wider role for set-aside in relation to environmental protection was
recognized in the 2003 CAP reform.
Where set-aside land is allowed to naturally regenerate, a patchy habitat containing many broad-leaved
plants develops and this has been shown to provide good breeding and feeding habitat for many birds.
Crop stubbles and weed seeds beneft wintering birds. The other major form of management involves
sowing it with a grass mixture. The resulting dense grassland is attractive to a variety of small mammals.
Non-rotational set-aside generally develops a greater abundance of invertebrates than other in-feld
arable habitats, but access for birds may be constrained by the density of the vegetation. The main
beneft set-aside has for water quality is the reduction of inputs of fertilizers or pesticides to farmland.
Keeping an adequate soil cover is hence a key factor for retaining the benefcial effects of set-aside
in this respect. Set-aside does also play a role in erosion control. There is lowering of the average soil
erosion rate of the remaining arable felds when set-aside is introduced. This is due to the fact that
farmers tend to take the steepest felds out of production. Some studies also see a positive effect in
terms of climate change adaptation. In terms of cultural services, set-aside can be seen as introducing
diversity into the landscape and improving its amenity value. It can also introduce colour into landscape,
for example through fowers (e.g. poppies) and butterfies in species-rich feld margins or naturally
regenerating wildfower grassland.
Buffer strips
Permanent vegetated buffers, including vegetative flter strips, riparian buffers, and grassed waterways,
are installed in many areas to flter sediments from retained waters and deter sediment transport to water
bodies and ground water. Along with reducing sediment transport, the flters also help trap sediment
bound nutrients as well as pollutants such as pesticides. Apart from water purifcation, vegetative buffers
can flter airstreams of particulates by removing dust, gas, and microbial constituents. When planted in
strategic designs, shelterbelts can effectively mitigate odor. Buffer strips provide habitats and connect
existing habitats to facilitate species migration. Vegetation along rivers provides habitat for a wide range
of wildlife including woodpeckers, ducks, shorebirds and deer. However, while strips can serve as barriers
to the movement of weeds and pests they also provide habitats for unwanted species and are a potential
source of some crop pests. Apart from being habitat, flter strips can buffer hedges and other ecologically
valuable habitats alongside felds from pesticide drift and fertilizers. Vegetated buffer strips surrounding
cultivated felds decrease soil erosion. Depending on their appearance, buffer strips can also contribute
to the recreational appeal of landscapes by breaking up monocultures or increasing the aesthetics of
stream courses. As traditional features in some landscapes, feld margins may have heritage values
and give a sense of place or are used for recreation, e.g. by using them as jumps for horses during fox
hunting or to enhance game bird populations. While all vegetation of buffer strips can potentially be used
as raw material, agroforestry buffers are systems of land use especially planted for the production of
harvestable trees or shrubs.
Maintenance of permanent grassland
Managed permanent grassland or permanent pasture (as opposed to natural, non-managed grasslands,
terms usually used interchangeably, is according to the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009, art.
2(c) land used to grow grasses or other herbaceous forage that has not been included in crop rotation
of the holding for fve years or longer. The value of permanent pasture for the environment has long been
recognized and this led to the introduction of a safeguard being put in place under the 2003 CAP Reform
to encourage the maintenance of existing permanent pasture to avoid a massive conversion into arable
land, given its positive environmental effect.
The services provided beyond animal production are dependent on the type of grassland and on its
management. Extensively used grasslands are often associated with rare or traditional livestock breeds,
which in turn are valued as providing aesthetic, cultural and historical benefts, as well as genetic
resources for future breeding programmes. Further, extensively used grasslands are among the most
species-rich habitats in Europe. Because of this they have the potential to enhance pollination services
and hence primary production. Today, extensively used grasslands have a great value for recreation and
tourism as people are attracted by the birds, diverse plant life and open-air landscapes of grasslands.
Further, extensively used grasslands have contributed considerably to the development of ecological
knowledge and are testing grounds for key ecological concepts. Conversion of arable land into pasture
is very effcient in reducing nitrate leaching. Hay from extensive grasslands might also provide an
alternative source of fuel. Grasslands store approximately 34% of the global stock of carbon but unlike
trees, where above-ground vegetation is the primary source of carbon storage, most of the grassland
carbon stocks are in the soil. However, whether grassland is rather a sink or a source depends again
on its management. There are also some considerable trade-offs. Increasing demands for agricultural
products and biofuels compete strongly with the maintenances of grasslands. Another trade-off can be
found between livestock production and other ESS.
Crop rotation/diversifcation
Agricultural intensifcation and associated monocultures are known for their negative impact on a
range of ESS. Crop rotation/diversifcation is thus considered as one measure for a more sustainable
agriculture in the future. The European Commission (2011b) defnes crop rotation as planned and
ordered succession of different crops on the same feld (usually lasting 3-5 years). Under the greening
option, three crops with the main crop not exceeding 70% of arable and open air horticulture area and
the third not less than 5% are suggested. No specifc crops can be required or excluded due to the rules
of the WTO, but voluntary growth of leguminous crops should be encouraged. The fact that crops cannot
be specifed makes the assessment of impacts of crop rotation and diversifcation diffcult as different
crops have different effects on ESS.
Increased plant diversity can create biotic barriers against new pests by promoting natural enemy
abundance. Overall, herbivore suppression, enemy enhancement, and crop damage suppression effects
were signifcantly stronger on diversifed crops than on crops with none or fewer associated plant species.
Yet pest-suppressive diversifcation schemes can have a negative impact on production, in part due to
reducing densities of the main crop by replacing it with intercrops or non-crop plants. Other advantages
of crop rotation include the increase of wild pollinators, the accumulation of soil organic carbon and even
the sequestration of atmospheric CO
2
, maintaining and restoring soil fertility, leading to increased yields
relative to monocultures and increased yield stability in nitrogen-limited environments without having
to employ costly and water-polluting fertilizers. Another beneft that is derived from crop diversifcation
relative to monocultures is the aesthetic value of the landscape.
Blueprint to Safeguard Europes Water Resources
Although called green infrastructure this concept also has a blue component, which refers to the aquatic
and wetland network (rivers and streams, canals, ponds, wetlands, etc.). One focus of the upcoming
Blueprint to Safeguard Europes Water Resources
42
will be on the acceleration of the implementation of
water-related green infrastructure measures. One measure currently under evaluation in the context of
the Blueprint is wetland restoration.
Since evidence is growing that rising investments in technical and structural measures have not been
accompanied by reduced food damages, alternative, softer approaches, such as wetland restoration,
are discussed and implemented. Wetlands can regulate water outputs from catchments by storing and
slowing the fow of foodwaters, providing food control and thus reducing the public cost of foods. In
coastal areas, wetlands such as marshes and other food plains can reduce coastal erosion and enhance
coastal food protection. The habitat qualities of wetlands attract high numbers of animals and animal
species, many of which depend entirely on wetlands. Rivers and associated wetlands provide ecological
connections. These do not only include a range of wildlife habitats but also support species dispersal
and migration. Shallow depth, large surface area and high shoreline complexity are likely to provide
a high biodiversity of birds, benthic invertebrates and macrophytes. As water passes through healthy
wetlands, the wetlands function as traps for nutrients, and water is fltered and cleaned. Wetlands
further contribute to groundwater recharge and thus play an important role in water supply, providing
drinking water as well as water for industrial use and irrigation. There is also a growing understanding
of the role of wetlands in sequestering carbon in long-lived pools and thus contributing to climate
regulation. Wetlands are important tourism destinations because of their aesthetic value and the high
diversity of the animal and plant life they contain. Yet, nature based recreation such as wildlife viewing,
hiking, running, cycling, canoeing, horse riding and dog walking can have negative environmental effects,
when proper management is missing and visitor numbers are too high and noisy, trails are left, litter is
not removed, etc. Wetland ecosystems also provide a range of provisioning services. Fish and fshery
products, berries or mushrooms can also be directly harvested from wetlands. While hunting in wetlands
is in the developed world rather perceived to be a recreational service, the game can also be counted as
provisioning service.
4 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/index_en.htm
Policy analysis of the pollination service
The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC
53
) considers that, although pollination is a critical issue
that is well acknowledged within the scientifc community, it appears to be neglected and insuffciently
appreciated by policymakers, industry (particularly the agricultural sector) and the general public. As
a result, the IRGC believes that the threats to pollination services and related risks are not adequately
taken into account, directly or indirectly, in policies and regulations that may affect pollinators and their
habitats. (IRGC, 2009)
A way to identify the policies which have, may have, or should have signifcance for pollination, is to look
at the work which has been done to identify the drivers behind pollinator loss. In research literature these
drivers have been identifed as: changing land use patterns, agro-chemicals, diseases, invasive species,
climate change, fre, overgrazing and introduction of non-native plants. There are numerous policies which
affect these drivers. Table 5.3 lists global as well as European policies and key regulatory frameworks at
EU scale that affect pollination services by infuencing the drivers behind pollination loss, showing that
management of the pollination ecosystem service is indeed a complex, multilevel policy issue.
Table 5.3. Key regulatory frameworks that affect pollination services in Europe
Convention on Biological Diversity
International Pollinator Initiative
Guidance for improving and developing policies and practices
to enhance pollinator conservation and habitat restoration
The Common Agricultural Policy
and rural development policies
Key policy that provides a suite of measures that may
enhance (or decrease) wild pollination services
Nature directives
(Habitats and Birds)
Protection of habitats that host pollinator populations,
species conservation
EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 Overall biodiversity is important for pollinators. Degradation
of habitats is one of the drivers behind pollinator loss
Plant Protection Products Directive Regulates pesticide use and thus of key importance
for pollinators
IAS Strategy Commission is currently working on a dedicated legislative
instrument on Invasive Alien Species. This potentially mitigates
pollinator loss
Climate change policy Climate change has many negative effects on pollinators
and pollination
Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) Directive
EIA is an important tool for land use policies,
while land use change is a driver of pollinator loss
Forest policies Forest edges represent essential habitats for wild pollinators
Environmental Liability Directive Prevent and restore damage to animals, plants, natural
habitats and water resources, and damage affecting the land
The directives and regulations in Table 5.3 are considered the most directly relevant policy frameworks
for pollination management. The table is elaborated in the next few pages.
5 The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) is an independent organisation based in Switzerland whose
purpose is to identify and propose recommendations for the governance of emerging global risks. To ensure
the objectivity of its governance recommendations, the IRGC draws upon international scientifc knowledge
and expertise from both the public and private sectors in order to develop fact-based risk governance
recommendations for policymakers, untainted by vested interests or political considerations.
Convention on Biological Diversity and International Pollinator Initiative
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has legitimised the global concern for pollinators through
prioritising them in the Conservation and Sustainable use of Agricultural Biological Diversity programme
in 1996. From the programme resulted an international pollinator workshop which in turn led to The So
Paulo Declaration on Pollinators. This declaration proposed an International Pollinator Initiative (IPI)
61
.
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was invited to facilitate the initiative. A Plan of Action (POA)
for the IPI was developed. It outlines guidance for improving and/or developing policies and practices to
enhance pollinator conservation and habitat restoration.
European Pollinator Initiative (EPI)
The European Pollinator Initiative (EPI) was formed in 2000 and aims to protect and enhance the
biodiversity and economic value of pollinators throughout Europe
72
. The EPI action plan, as well as
other Initiatives Action Plans, contains four elements: assessment, adaptive management, capacity
building and mainstreaming. The EPIs main strategy is to integrate and co-ordinate local, national
and international activities into a cohesive network to overcome the currently fragmented activities of
scientists, end-users and stakeholders.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
While agriculture provides suitable habitats for many pollinators it can also have negative effects on
them. Pollinators require habitats for both foraging for nectar and pollen as well as nesting. Farmland
biodiversity has drastically declined in the past few decades due to agricultural intensifcation and a shift
to large-scale monocultures has led to the loss and fragmentation of extensively used grasslands. In
addition to this loss of habitats and therefore loss of foraging and nesting sites pollinators are negatively
affected by fertilizers or other agro-chemicals use. The diversity of plant and plant production, which
is of utmost importance for agricultural production, also depends on the abundance and diversity of
pollinators. Agricultural land management has created a rich variety of landscapes and habitats over the
centuries, including a mosaic of woodlands, wetlands, and extensive tracts of open country sides.
Even though pollination is not mentioned as one of the priority areas in the CAP, it may have positive
effects on pollination through providing and sustaining pollinator-friendly environments and conditions.
Pollinators or pollination are not mentioned explicitly and the effects of the measures on pollination turn
out to be mixed. Agri-environment schemes are not designed at EU-level but at Member State or even
regional levels and can differ widely among Member States. Evaluation of the impact thus becomes
very challenging. The preservation of the remaining extensively used grasslands or re-creation of fower-
rich grasslands is essential and can contribute greatly to sustain the abundance and diversity of insect
pollinators. Knowledge gaps currently impede development of effective management plans that support
pollination services and recommend research that combines multiyear, multiscale monitoring of bee
abundance and pollination functions in response to habitat modifcation to restore pollination services
in landscapes.
Habitats Directive
The European Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and fora) forms the cornerstone of Europes nature conservation policy. Especially in
6 http://www.internationalpollinatorsinitiative.org/
7 http://www.europeanpollinatorinitiative.org/
Annex I of the Habitats Directive, several habitat types suitable for pollinators are listed, including some
grasslands and wet meadows
83
.
Rural development policies
Policies closely coupled to those mentioned so far are rural development policies, as they infuence land
use and thereby infuence the pollination. The essential regulation for rural development on European
level is the Council Regulation 1698/2005/EC to support rural development by the European Agricultural
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
Birds Directive
The Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC, see also 2009/47/EC) was adopted in 1979 and aims to protect and
conserve wild bird species naturally occurring in the EU. It may also have a positive effect on pollinators
as some bird species, such as hummingbirds, sunbirds, honeycreepers and some parrot species are
important pollinators, too. According to the FAO (2008), on a global scale 26 species of hummingbirds,
7 species of sunbirds and 70 species of passerine birds all of which are known to pollinate plants
are endangered. Many pollinators are also important food sources for higher animals and their loss may
threaten predatory bird species (IRGC 2009).
Plant Protection Products Directive
The Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC) of 15 July 1991, concerning the release of plant
protection products, regulates the sale of pesticides and herbicides within the EU. The directive aims to
ensure that marketed products do not pose a threat to human, animal and environmental health. The
Regulation 396/2005 on pesticide residues in food and feed is closely related. Both Directive 91/414
and Regulation 396/2005 aim at a high level of protection of human health and the environment. As
pesticides are known to pose a risk to pollinators these EU policies are likely to beneft pollination, too.
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA)
and rural development policies
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC) was introduced in 1985.
The aim of this directive is to provide a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to
the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation of public or private projects before
authorising their implementation. The EIA is an important tool for land use policies. As pointed out
above, changes in land use have been identifed as one of the drivers behind pollinator loss due to the
accompanying loss of nesting and foraging sites. While land use policies and management are usually
implemented more at the Member State than EU level, the EIA is one way to ensure sustainable land use
development within the EU.
Forest policies
Another prominent land use within the EU is forestry. It can be assumed that European forests contribute
to pollination services, although evidence is still restricted to tropical forests. While forestry policy mainly
lies with each Member State there is a common EU forestry strategy, which is currently under review.
While in a report from the workshop on the review of the EU forestry strategy (EC, 2011f) pollination
8 Council of the European Communities (1992). Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and fora. OJ L 206, 22/07/1992 P. 0007-0050.
is not mentioned explicitly, a general valuation and payment for non-wood products and services and
ecosystem services is suggested.
Environmental Liability Directive
The Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/EC), based on the polluter pays principle, was adopted
on 30 April 2004 and came into force on 30 April 2007. It establishes a common framework for liability,
preventing and remedying damage to animals, plants, natural habitats and water resources, and damage
affecting the land. It seeks to ensure that, in the future, environmental damage in the EU is prevented or
remedied and that those who cause it are held responsible. This directive may be applicable, directly or
indirectly, to loss of pollinators.
Other policies
The above mentioned directives and regulations are the most evident policy frameworks for pollination.
However, there are other policy areas, which should also be considered even if the connection has
not been empirically verifed or is otherwise poorly known. For example, effects of climate change on
pollination are highly debated, however, there is lack of empirical evidence about the connection. EU
Regulations related to climate change might therefore also be relevant for pollination (EC 2011g). Since
agricultural products are part of world economy, also EU trade policy has indirect links to pollinators
through creating pressures (e.g. population growth and demand for food supplies), which in turn infuence
the direct drivers of pollinator loss, e.g. intensifying agriculture.

6. References
Braat L.C. & P. ten Brink (eds.), 2008. The Cost of Policy Inaction: the case of not meeting the 2010 Biodiversity target. Report
to the European Commission under contract: ENV.G.1./ETU/2007/0044; Wageningen, Brussels; Alterra report 1718.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/index_en.htm
Cardinale, B.J., 2011. Biodiversity improves water quality through niche partitioning. Nature 472, 86-91.
Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., MacE, G.M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D.A.,
Kinzig, A.P., Daily, G.C., Loreau, M., Grace, J.B., Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D.S., Naeem, S., 2012. Biodiversity loss and its
impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59-67.
Convention of Biological Diversity, 2010. COP 10 Decision X/2. Available online at: http://www.cbd.int/decision/
cop/?id=12268.
De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services
and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7:260272.
EEA, 2010. Assessing biodiversity in Europe the 2010 report. EEA Report No 5/2010.
EEA, 2011. Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion. The concept of green infrastructure and its integration into policies
using monitoring systems. EEA Technical report No 18/2011. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
EEC, 1992. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with
the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside.. Offcial Journal of the
European Communities No L215: 85-90.
European Commission, 2005. Agri-environment measures. Overview on general principles, types of measures, and application.
European Commission. Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development.
European Commission, 2011a. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Brussels,
2011-05-03. COM(2011) 244.
European Commission, 2011b. Greening Results of partial analysis on impact on farm income using FADN. Annex 2D,
Impact assessment. Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020, Staff Working Paper, Brussels.
European Commission, 2011c. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A budget for Europe 2020. Brussels, 2011-6-29. COM(2011) 500.
European Commission, 2011d. European Commission, Agriculture and the environment: Introduction.
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/index_en.htm.
European Commission, 2011e. European Commission, Agri-environment measures.
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/measures/index_en.htm.
European Commission, 2011f. Report on the workshop for the review of the EU forestry strategy.
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/events/15-04-2011/report_en.pdf.
European Commission, 2011g. European Commission Climate Action.
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/clima/mission/index_en.htm.
European Commission, 2011h. Greening Results of partial analysis on impact on farm income using FADN, Annex 2D, Impact
assessment, Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020, Staff Working Paper, Brussels.
European Commission, 2011i. Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council on support for rural
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). COM(2011) 627 fnal/2. Brussels.
European Commission, 2011j. Regional policy contributing to sustainable growth in Europe 2020. COM(2011)17 fnal. Brussels.
European Commission, 2012. A blueprint to safeguard Europes water resources. Consulation document Available online at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/blueprint.pdf.
European Crop Protection Association, 2011. Pollinators and Agriculture - a report. Brussels: European Crop Protection
Association.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2008. Rapid Assessment of Pollinators Status. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Haines-Young, R.H., Potschin, M.P., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being In: Raffaelli
D, C Frid, editors. Ecosystem Ecology: a new synthesis. Cambridge University Press.
International Risk Governance Council, 2009. Concept note. Risk governance of pollination services. Geneva.
Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., 2011. Natural Capital. Theory and practice of mapping ecosystem
services. Oxford University Press.
MA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources
Institute, Washington D.C.
Maes, J., Braat, L., Jax K., Hutchins, M., Furman, E., Termansen, M., Lucque, S., Paracchini, M.L., Chauvin, C., Williams, R., Volk,
M., Lautenbach, S., Kopperoinen, L., Schelhaas, M.-J., Weinert, J., Goossen, M., Dumont, E., Strauch, M., Grg, C., Dormann,
C., Katwinkel, M., Zulian, G., Varjopuro, R., Hauck, J., Forsius, M., Hengeveld, G., Perez-Soba, M., Bouraoui, F., Scholz, M.,
Schilz-Zunkel, C., Lepisto, A., Polishchuk, Y., Bidoglio, G., 2011. A spatial assessment of ecosystem services in Europe:
methods, case studies and policy analysis - phase 1. PEER Report No 3. Ispra: Partnership for European Environmental
Research.
Maes, J., Paracchini, M.L., Zulian, G., Dunbar, M.B., Alkemade, R., 2012. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service
supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biological Conservation http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2012.06.016
Mazza L., Bennett G., De Nocker L., Gantioler S., Losarcos L., Margerison C., Kaphengst T., McConville A., Rayment M., ten
Brink P., Tucker G., van Diggelen R., 2011. Green Infrastructure Implementation and Effciency. Final report for the European
Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2010/0059. Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels
and London.
TEEB, 2010a. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundation Edited By Pushpam Kumar.
An output of TEEB: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Cambridge: Earthscan.
TEEB, 2010b.The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the
approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
Ecosystems are critically important to our well-being and prosperity as they provide us with food,
clean air or fresh water and they maintain a livable biosphere. Consequently, ecosystem services
are increasingly considered as crucial argument to support decision making in policies that affect
the use or the state of natural resources. In particular, new biodiversity policies, which have been
adopted at global and EU scales, have set targets to safeguard biodiversity as well as to maintain the
supply of ecosystem services. Achieving biodiversity targets requires demonstrating that changes in
policies affecting natural resources are benefcial to human well-being through the enhanced fow of
ecosystem services. It also requires prioritizing investments and making them cost-effective based
on a sound knowledge base and assessment methods. This study has contributed case studies to
help exploring how such assessments might be developed at multiple spatial scale, in particular for
pollination, recreation and water purifcation. The spatial assessment of these ecosystem services
included maps displaying the potential and actual supply of these services in both biophysical and
monetary units. Scenarios were used to estimate changes in the fow of ecosystem services and
to estimate benefts that arise from policy changes. Our approaches show that the inclusion of the
ecosystem services concept into policies would allow a systematic review of the consequences of
policy measures for services beyond conventional environmental assessments.
www.peer.eu
L
B
-
N
S
-
2
5
4
6
0
-
E
N
-
C

(
p
r
i
n
t
)

L
B
-
N
S
-
2
5
4
6
0
-
E
N
-
N

(
o
n
l
i
n
e
)

A Spacial Assessment of Ecosystem Services in Europe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Spacial Assessment of Ecosystem Services in Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PARTNERSHIP FOR EUROPEAN

Crop rotation/ diversifcation

You might also like